Assessing the sociology of sport: On sport organizations and critical knowledge

Emergence and recognition of the sociology of sport leaning on a professional field

The trajectory of the sociology of sport can be analysed at an international level. Yet, it also needs to be considered within local contexts that may not be as connected to existing global networks. In other words, it is important to recognize national and regional autonomies that exist within the sociology of sport. For example, in France, its autonomy can be explained by the unique and long-standing tradition of French sociology. As a consequence, the local focus and priorities are related to the necessity of sociologists of sport to participate primarily in the broader Francophone field of sociology. Furthermore, there is a generally prevailing self-perception of the importance of a distinctive Francophone tradition of sociology that challenges a perceived Anglo-Saxon imperialism within academia. Consequently, there is a marked contrast between the perceived importance of French authors, such as Foucault and Bourdieu, and a trend towards the internationalization of sociology, a trend that situates English as a default common language and contributes to Anglo-Saxon academic domination.

Putting sport on the agenda of social sciences has been achieved in various ways (Malcolm, 2014). In France, the agenda began in the 1950s with a focus on sport and leisure as cultural practices that could be beneficial for people’s development and education (Dumazedier, 1950). In the 1960s and 1970s other authors highlighted the value of sport as games useful for social development (e.g. Parlebas, 1976). Such analyses had significant support from the physical education field, as was the case in the US. (Sage, 1997).

Driven by the May 1968 civil unrest in France, there came strong critiques of sport by neo-Marxists scholars with a physical education background. Many drew upon a radical critique of sport organizations that was strongly influenced by the Frankfurt school (e.g. Brohm, 1978 [1976]). The development of the sociology of sport took another turn during the 1980s, when sport science was integrated into French universities. In particular, the influence of Bourdieu in the 1980s was important. His theories led the way to the analysis of sport as a specific cultural practice (Defrance, 2006).

Many of the topics that have developed more generally in sociology find expression in the sociology of sport. As this was realised, the standing of the field progressed considerably. Paradoxically, in France, in contrast to the recognition that has been gained within the sociological field, the practice of sociology of sport has come under threat within the sport sciences. However, as in other countries, parts of the sociological study of sport were preserved in the context of sport management. Sport management as a field of study became attractive because it could provide jobs for students whereas sport sciences were criticised for not making their students employable. Sport management offered the opportunity to show how sociology could be useful within the sport sciences and, indeed, some sport sociologists became involved in sport management programmes. Here, the sociological lens was shown to be applicable to areas such as marketing or understanding and successfully managing public and private sport organizations.

The main challenge: Keeping a place within the sport sciences

Ongoing changes within sociology and sport sciences raised major challenges for the sociology of sport. Most formidable was its continued dependency on sport sciences. Yet, as an area of study, the sociology of sport has played a significant role in the development of many sport science departments. In contrast, in the field of sociology, sport remained a peripheral area of concern (Collinet, 2002). Indeed, future prospects for a widespread recognition of the sociology of sport within sociology remain dim. In this, it is difficult to know what to wish for. It could be that a unique sociology of sport could disappear and sport could just be one of the subjects considered within sociology departments. Indeed, some argue that important research on sport could be done on sport without the need for a specialized sub-field in the sociology of sport. It seems that despite the interest in sport by numerous prestigious sociologists (e.g. Elias, Bourdieu, etc.), few general sociologists in France today would be likely to really consider sport as an important topic. Thus, while seeking legitimacy within the field of sociology always remains an option (Bairner, 2010), this avenue is not realistic for the short-term.

At this point, because there is little hope that the sociology of sport will gain real standing in sociology departments in the near future, the field will likely remain dependent on sport science departments. The history of the sociology of sport, with its strong roots in the field of physical education (Collinet and Terral, 2007; Malcolm, 2014), is now dependent on sport sciences for its professional recognition and access to jobs for its doctoral students. Yet here, in order to maintain its empirical base, its theoretical diversity and to retain a diversity in its subjects and methods, the sociology of sport must continually fight to defend its place within sport science departments.

This necessity for the sociology of sport to defend itself in the context of sport sciences can be seen in three key threats. The first threat comes from the growth of experimental and life sciences within sport sciences. Because life sciences were close to the medical world in France (Collinet and Terral, 2007: 64), this made room for social science approaches in the sport sciences. However now life sciences are increasingly applied to sport in sport sciences departments. Here, sociology is often seen as a ‘soft science’ and held in disdain by ignorant researchers who perceive themselves as ‘real’ scientists. In this kind of situation, scholars involved in health issues or seen to be contributing to increased achievement in high performance sport succeed in making themselves more relevant for the sport sciences and, more broadly, within society. Furthermore, the low level of collective organization of sociologists, who are often Balkanized by competing theoretical perspectives, has played a role in not being able to mount a disciplinary defence as the life sciences took hold in the sport sciences.

A second threat is related to the increasing difficulty in combining the sociology of sport with sport management within the curriculum. Because of the emergence and growth of a new academic field specializing in sport management, there is a lessened need for sociologists to be involved in sport management programmes.

The third threat stems from the relative autonomy of the sociology of sport. The domination of the biosciences has reinforced the idea that applied health-related topics are more legitimate areas for inquiry (Bairner, 2010). This has become increasingly recognized both within and outside the sociology of sport field. The pragmatics of this means that jobs, financing and recognition will come more easily to those scholars with applied interests and, in the process, far-ranging sociological inquiry about sport may be seen as a secondary matter, autonomous from practical concerns, and as a result, to some, less relevant.

A strategy for an external legitimacy to gain recognition within the scientific field

The challenges for the development of the sociology of sport within the scientific field will be considerable in the future. Presently, there is a dire need to increase the internal and the external legitimacy of the sociology of sport. On this count, it will be increasingly important for the sociology of sport to offer critical views of the naturalization processes that are related to optimizing bodily performance and to shed light on what may be seen as imperialistic explanations in some parts of the life sciences. Here critical standpoints on the body, health issues, sport performance, gender, race and inequalities can help put both sport science and economic concerns over sport in perspective. Sport is not just a marketplace where bodily optimization, sporting successes, targeting consumers and growing revenues are goals that need no social context. Indeed, epistemological criticism is fundamentally necessary to both the sciences and to its applications in the sporting field. The context provided by the sociology of sport can have ready applications. Sociologists who have worked with local sport authorities, organizations and companies routinely use research findings from the sociology of sport to advance contemporary practices that provide public benefit. As a result, increasingly, sociological issues concerning gender, race, social class, disability and inequalities are considered seriously by sport organizations and sport policy makers. Yet, these changes are recent, not widely adopted, fragile and subject to erosion and challenge.

Critical analysis is important in understanding how sporting organizations produce performances, both as physical achievements as well as in the symbolic production of sport as an entertainment spectacle. Criticism of sporting institutions and their policies, economic practices and media strategies is essential because it can shed light on how sport may not live up to its promise of a level playing field on matters of gender, race and fundamental power inequities. Here, critics will need to rely on observations and data from organizations that are often difficult to access. Yet, through such pathways, critical and sociological understandings can be brought into organizational settings often sceptical and resistant to change. Indeed, in the process, sociological knowledge can spread through indirect channels to influence employees, the media, athletes and policies.

Such strategies may cause some discomfort to sociologists in their ivory towers who may look down on sporting organizations and yet wish to give advice about how they should be managed. Instead of a true epistemological principle not to be compromised, critical distance can also be a discourse that compensates weak empirical data. There remain real risks that sociologists may act as a kind of ‘moral entrepreneur’ (Becker, 1963). Without being well informed about how people function within the organizational settings and situations, pronouncements based more on moral judgements than on observations can discredit the sociology of sport. A key way for sociologists to combat becoming a ‘moral entrepreneur’ is to work harder to gain organizational access. In companion, sociologists need to be more candid in their criticism of data that may be limited or weak and observational tendencies that are based on an outsider’s perspective.

Working harder to have a distanced view is very important to producing critical knowledge and remains a challenge in the sociology of sport. In short, the sociology of sport must strengthen its methodological tools and its theoretical background, but this is not enough. The symbolic benefits from being critical can be greater than giving attention to the complexity of sport organizations. Thus one needs to be critical toward a sociology that is only shared in academic circles in specialized journals or congresses. This kind of gentrified sociology, solely ‘between peers’, is more comfortable but less useful than sociology that impacts on society.

Undoubtedly it will be challenging to introduce sociological understandings into sporting organizations. Yet the ‘sociological lens’ could and should transact with the everyday chores of managers and lawyers and their economic, marketing and legal actions. The more we can show the utility of sociology, the more sport organizations could open up to it and this advances prospects for equitable changes in sport. In the end, that’s why there is a need for the engagement and critical standpoints of ‘committed’ sociologists within the ‘everyday’ of sport. While sport organizations may be more interested in marketing and life sciences that seem to have proved their utility in improving incomes and performances, sociology can play an essential role as well. Sport organizations can evolve and improve their social and cultural relevance and standing by incorporating sociological knowledge. A key benefit to such critical engagement would be to foster external legitimacy for the sociology of sport, making it more vibrant and relevant, and thereby elevating its standing within sport sciences.